The only way Trump can get control of illegal immigration is to end sanctuaries. Proposed it to deny them federal funds but the funds come from block grands that other distribute, out of Trump's control. The effect of denying funds may have an unexpected effect that is not desirable. Attorney General should go to the courts to force them to follow federal law.

The sanctuaries give something like this as a reason, “In Los Angeles, home to an estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants, the police chief stands behind the idea that successful policing requires maintaining the cooperation of the majority of the city's residents. Taking on the role of immigration police would tear that cooperation apart, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said in a news conference. “ Their are about 200 sanctuary cities or rather Confederate cities, counties, and state. We fought a civil war over nullification.

Mark Levin 12/1/2016 suggested another approach. Sanctuary cities are applying the principle of Nullification that the Democratic Party argued before the Civil War for states right as related to slavery. Sanctuary Cities, counties, and states have significant Democratic Party rule. Are today's democrats again pulled this trick out of a pocket? "[N]ullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

The new Attorney General should go to the courts to force them to follow federal law. He would have to choose a judge not appointed by Obama that has supported sanctuaries. It is ironic that the case that the Attorney General will site occurred during Obama's first term. The courts ruled against nullification on immigration laws, "The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law." http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politics/scotus-arizona-law/index.html and the court decision: rel="noopener">supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

The new Attorney General go into federal court and seek a rit of mandamus compelling the officials of these government to comply with federal law, and if the refuse then hold them in contempt of the court and hold them in criminal contempt of the federal law by name, each and everyone of them. Then we shall see if the courts compel them. Now if the courts do not compel the sanctuaries then no federal law or regulation can be compelled. It is a free for all and any state, city county, school district can ignore federal regulations, bluster, laws etc. and demand federal funds.

Comments

Thomas.
It is too soon to discuss how the Trump admin. will go after Sanctuary Cities, because there is no Trump Admin.
But I expect Jeff Sessions to go after the STATE to enforce immigration Law on cities.
As an example, San Francisco gets less than $2 Million in Federal Law Enforcement funding. But the State of California gives $ 57 million.
The power of enforcement lies with the State to control rogue cities, if they want their Federal money. Cal. gets $135 million.
Ironically, the precedent was set When Reagan was Gov. of Cal. and instituted the Bracero program to allow migrant workers to enter Cal. Legally.
The Cal. Supreme Court ruled that immigration policy is Federal Jurisdiction.

Each State will be different, but the precedent is set in most cities from Civil Rights action.

Mark Levin help create Landmark legal foundation that has existed for 25 yrs. and has reached the supreme court a few times. I recent years has got a judgement against the EPA for destroying records that were Subpoenaed.

I have only stated the approach he said would work. The issue he sited was the decision of the judge. Realize that Obama has put about half the judges on the bench and this is for life. The only means of removing them is for congress to eliminate the court which by the Constitution is their responsibility and can not be overturned by the Supreme court. It is very specific language.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions can begin Federal government lawsuits against sanctuary cities, but even more effectively, and more quickly, if he had the will to, Trump could simply deny Federal funding to cities which refuse to enforce Federal law. They'd all be bankrupt in a year.

The political ammunition is different for each federal fund that goes to a city, county, or state. So it is not quite as simple to just cut them off. Some also do not go directly to the sanctuary government unit. Laying off city employees and/or closing down pubic services is not the type of ammunition you want to give to the Democrats.

So the lawsuit approach can be targeted to people by name so the services of the sanctuary government and employees are not effected, no ammunition. The people that pay taxes will say I have to follow the laws whether I like them or not so the public official should also have to follow the law. Thus Mark Levin's approach, "Attorney General go into federal court and seek a rit of mandamus compelling the officials of these government to comply with federal law, and if the refuse then hold them in contempt of the court and hold them in criminal contempt of the federal law by name, each and everyone of them." Mark pointed out that that the only problem is that a liberal judge that believes in giving sanctuary may not follow the presidents set by Obama when Arizona enforced federal law. The case said that the federal government takes president over state and thus other lower government units. Arizona must act in accordance to the federal government that can choose to enforce or not enforce a federal law. Thus if a liberal judge goes against this ruling then it will move up the chain to the next court. That court can sanction the lower court judge.

I have had it with "progressives" picking the pockets of taxpayers who disagree with their ridiculous "programs" that would NEVER stand on their own merits. Paying to shelter dangerous criminals and releasing multi-convicted felons from custody to murder young women walking with their Dad could only be conceived and approved by "progressives". If an ordinary citizen did what "sanctuary cities" do he would be arrested for aiding and abetting a criminal.

Mike H., the voters this election agree that they do not like the GOP progressive candidates for president, the establishment ones. The first progressive presidents were Republicans and last two Republican presidents were progressives. Democrats are progressive and socialist which happen to both be from the 1800's, the industrial revolution period in history. That is why both believe in the same government structure that was taken from the industrial revolution corporations.

What you mean is that where areas have been conquered by the illegal immigrant invaders, the people are cucked. Agreed. Middle America wants the coasts to be allowed to secede, or turn into the third world, if they wish, but not drag us there with them.

How about show the Democrats that want sanctuary cities (want the voters on welfare and unemployed and the illegal aliens working for less wage). Who gains? Well the crony capitalists get to make more profit due to lower wages and due to welfare that lets them sell the products as if the wage was higher. You see welfare means they can sell their product at a higher price. Now the politicians gain also because those that receive welfare do not want it to end (so long is as a job is not available where they make more then welfare provides plus the added costs associated with working) so they vote in those that will give it to them.

The solution is to cause the economy to grow so that more jobs will come available at a wage that will make working more valuable then receiving welfare. And remember that there pride in working. Then the dependency on the politicians will decrease.

Now also reduce the illegal aliens by enforcing the laws that require employers to not employ them. E-verify program for employers require they check the status of the people they want to hire. And enforce the penalties for having illegal aliens working. That can only happen if sanctuary government units end: cities, counties, and states.

Fred writes: Middle America wants to save the coasts from themselves. - "Fly Over America" does want to save anybody. They just want to ensure they see some group get "hurt." Fly Overs are overwhelmingly wanting to see "the Coasts take a good hit. Look at the comments from Billy the Nazi Roper. Sutrino further writes: And enforce the penalties for having illegal aliens working. That can only happen if sanctuary government units end: cities, counties, and states.- I've always found this somewhat ironic. Nobody goes after the businesses that hire illegals, ever, yet people whine "THEY'RE TAKING OUR JOBS!!!" Really? All those angry white families in ditches alongside lettuce fields in Central California, tears streaming down their faces, having lost "Their jobs" to illegal immigrants. Riiight.

But there was not enough of them outside of their enclaves in cities and a few states to win the electoral college. So if Trump stops promoting the Bush progressive program that cause George H. Bush to not get re-elected and George W., Bush to barely hand on to the White House 52th and 50th our of the 54 elections excluding Washington. Reagan was 7th and 3rd on that list, now that is a mandate. Trump is 44th, well below half. He ran on half Reagan and half Bush platform with a middle voter response. Get the hint Trump, want a second term follow Reagan, not Bush.

Fred N. you can thank Tip O'Neal the speaker of the House. You remember Obama's complaint that congress did not want to work with him. Reagan worked with Tip and Tip wanted to increase spending. Reagan got lower taxes, less regulation and build up the military. Tip got more spending on social programs. So who caused the deficits is not clear obvious with more employment we actually needed less social programs to support those not working. Yep, Fred Tip O'Neal is likely more responsible for the deficits.

Various institutions provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants, including churches. We need a comprehensive approach to stop illegal immigration altogether and incentivize legal immigration by vastly increasing guest-worker visas. Of course, we need tighter border security for national security reasons, but we still want commerce and tourism. A border patrol post every fifty miles or so would be better than a physical wall, but we must also stop visa overstays; underground tunnels; and corruption, some just pay somebody to come to the United States.

"President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:
1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across the board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real
reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth
compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures Forbes
http://onforb.es/qH5Dq7

Let's see if I understand this correctly:
American borders are supposed to be secured by federal agencies. Those who illegally breach U.S. borders are then guilty of at least one federal offense, and it is the duty of the agencies involved (ICE, BATF, FBI, etc.) to apprehend those who break federal laws. Those who enter and live illegally in the U.S. eventually wind up in cities which receive money from the federal and state budget while obligated to obey federal and state laws (among them laws governing territorial sovereignty of the U.S., weapons, drugs and human trafficking, etc.), but those same cities then turn around and give federal anti-crime efforts the finger by insisting on giving sanctuary to those who enter the country illegally and in many cases commit further crimes in terms of local, state and federal statutes?

I am all for immigration and giving persecuted people asylum, but this must be based on legal processes being followed (unlike Chinese who pay Triads to smuggle them into the U.S., then work in sweatshops to pay back the trip and when caught in a raid claim asylum because of China's one child policy) and the federal, state and local governments knowing who and where they are for every reason between national security, law enforcement and voter fraud prevention, which are some of the duties the government has towards its law abiding citizens who were born there, naturalized citizens and legal immigrants, other wise there's no point in having laws or behaving in a lawful manner- and if people begin to see it that way, then there'll be chaos.

Yeah, charge state and local officials with contempt of court, aiding and abetting criminals, as well as introduce budget sanctions for each offense, then we'll see how willing they'll be to protect MS-13, Los Zetas and who knows how many other criminals.

Mircea N., great comment. Since the 1900's the start of the progressive era the trend of government is to remove humanity from government. Governments zeal is to write 'inclusive' regulation that define everything so the government agent does not have to think but just follow the regulation. So it is always growing and changing because it is impossible to by inclusive.

Common Law is the understanding that the community defines what level of interference between citizens is acceptable not on high by the 'government agency experts'. Thus it is obvious that when common law is applied we will not be deporting neighbors that have lived decades in the country. That children which know no other country and culture then America and have completed years of schooling will not be deported. Americans have compassion and that will be seen in juries that will set the standards of deportation judgements. PS Sanctuary cities are not following common law. To follow common law trials by a jury of citizens must occur. And as the civil right supreme court decisions have determined is a few instances local juries may not represent the 'common.'

That America will again follow the practice of all countries of the world and that is clearly stated in the decision by the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment (Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/) (1884)). That a child born inside our borders citizenship is determine by his parents citizenship. If neither is a citizen of America then the child is not a citizen.

Reaganomics was allowed to run too long unmanaged. It was a great quick fix, but it's positive effects reversed themselves in the 1989 and 2008 crashes; mostly because of the "distortion of principle" of deregulation.

Liberals like to use courts to make laws that they otherwise can't get passed, like "sue and settle" lawsuits between environmentalists and the EPA to force solutions that Congress won't allow.
Going to court to force these sanctuary cities won't work, though, because the cities see their values as above the law and have often ignored many legal rulings from Defense of Marriage Act to deportation orders. The only way a court could "force" them is arresting lead Democrats or saying yes, you can withhold the money.
Now we're back to "withhold the money". And spending millions on lawsuits to force them to obey the law wastes money. Just withdraw funds and let them live without it.

Steve B., VP George H. Bush was picked to represent the main line progressive Republicans. He won election on the coat tails of Reagan but could not hang on to the White House. Pres. G. H. Bush was not re-elected because he reverted back to progressive Republican policies. GOP house under Newt Gingrich followed Reagan's approach, Contract With America. Much of Pres. Bill Clinton success was because he had to compromise with Gingrich. Pres. George W. Bush returned to his father's progressive Republican policy, and the progressives in both parties got rid of Gingrich.

Dems' sold the country starting with Carter and followed by Clinton that everyone was owed a home which resulted in a housing policy that did not consider the ability to pay, thus the 2008 crash. Hillary Clinton tried to sell, everyone is owed health care and Obama achieved everyone is owed health insurance, but actual health is another matter, people found out that they actually lost health care.

Steve, people have now rejected 8 years of Bush progressivism and 8 years of Obama progressivism. Maybe they are rejecting progressivism. They did not reject Reagan capitalism he rose from the 7th position to 3rd in the most electoral votes for his second term. George H. Bush on his coat tail was in the top half of electoral votes.

Tamara W. the Democratic mayors see the cutting of federal funds as a way to point their finger at Republican as say you do not care about the people, we do.

So the court is a better approach. First the federal government must say they are taking responsibility for law and order and prove it with deportation of criminals. When they identify a criminal in a sanctuary city they then can point their finger at the mayor and say you this criminal is responsible for the crime and murder rate in your city. Mayor you do not care about your citizens, we do.

Turn the table on them. Then when the courts now seeing the people response against the mayors will more likely charge them with criminal responsibility for their city not enforcing federal laws. The table again is turned on the Mayor.

So long as they have a steady stream of criminals are defined receiving sanctuary. The pressure is on the mayor. Demand that federal laws be used to remove the criminals caught by the city. New York used federal laws to remove illegal gun caring criminals because the sentences are longer.

Now some selective federal funds can be cut that minimize the effect on the citizens.

Subatomic Sutrino says: way to point their finger at Republican as say you do not care about the people, we do. - Since when have Republicans recently cared about anyone, save the super wealthy 1%ers? Don't try and bring up "Lincoln did." Closest in last century or so may have been TR.

So let me look at the savior of the working class, Pelosi, Reed, Shumer, Bill, Hillary, and Obama's Democratic Party. This maybe a little long but Jeffy-Boy I prefer fact not innuendo.

"New Deal's Public Works Administration led to the creation of segregated ghettos. Its policy was that public housing could be used only to house people of the same race as the neighborhood in which it was located, but, in fact, most of the public housing that was built in the early years was built in integrated neighborhoods, which they razed and then built segregated public housing in those neighborhoods. So public housing created racial segregation where none existed before. That was one of the chief policies. On the Federal Housing Administration's overtly racist policies in the 1930s, '40s and '50s.

The second policy, which was probably even more effective in segregating metropolitan areas, was the Federal Housing
Administration, which financed mass production builders of subdivisions starting in the '30s and then going on to the '40s and '50s. ... Administration gave builders ... loans through banks ... on the condition that no homes in those subdivisions be sold to African-Americans.

Fifty years after the repeal of Jim Crow, many African-Americans still live in segregated ghettos in the country's metropolitan
areas. Rothstein tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "It was not the unintended effect of benign policies," he says. "It was an explicit, racially purposeful policy that was pursued at all levels of government, and that's the reason we have these ghettos today and we are reaping the fruits of those policies."" NPR Fresh Air's Terry Gross May 14, 2015

Now to welfare that is made much worse by concentrating it in Ghettos. (next post)

"In fact, almost all of the Great Society programs are alive and well. The only program Reagan killed was the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act, which was regarded by liberals and conservatives alike as a failure.

Of the programs that remain, one is singled out for blame when it comes to the disintegrating inner cities: Welfare, which has
earned the special wrath of those who blast the Johnson administration for starting the long trend toward welfare dependency among the poor.

Yet, even there, the program most severely criticized, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), didn’t begin under
Johnson.

It started under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s "New Deal" in the 1930s, which authorized the program to make payment to
widows with children. Since then, AFDC has been expanded to cover all unmarried parents with children.

According to the Census Bureau, a single-parent family is six times more likely to be poor — and thus a recipient of welfare —
than a two-parent family. Women heading families are particularly vulnerable.

In 1980, there were 6.2 million families headed by single women, making up 19.4% of all families with children. By1990, that number had risen to 8.4 million families, or 24.2% of the total. Blacks have been especially hard hit.

The percentage of black households headed by women grew from 28% to 40% between 1970 and 1980.

At the beginning of World War II, the illegitimate birth rate among black Americans was slightly less than 19%."
http://fumento.com/economy/greatsociety.html

"Walter E. Williams, a George Mason economist and author of “Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?” is not a fan of the welfare state that exists in the country. In an appearance on Thursday night’s “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network, Williams argued that welfare has done more damage to black society than slavery or Jim Crow.

“[T]he welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done, namely break up the black family,” Williams said. “That is, today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two parent families. Historically, from 1870s on up to about 1940s, and depending on the city, 75 to 90 percent of black kids lived in two parent families. Illegitimacy rate is 70 percent among blacks where that is unprecedented in our history.”

But this isn’t just relegated to the American welfare state, but is seen in European welfare states as well." http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/04/walter-e-williams-on-welfare-as-govt-plays-father-blackmales-have-become-dispensable/#ixzz40GiegQWe

"If we put ourselves into the shoes of racists who seek to sabotage black upward mobility, we couldn't develop a more effective agenda than that followed by civil rights organizations, black politicians, academics, liberals and the news media."
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/07/31/black-selfsabotage-n1651550
Now this is real effective Jeffy-Boy, your savior of the working class, Pelosi, Reed, Shumer, Bill, Hillary, and Obama's Democratic Party.

I think people have finally begun to see how regressive progressivism really is. Progressivism is just another ideology that is now a "distortion of principle", weighed down by the overly "progressive". Their is no progress in progressivism, the promise of it is just job security for the politicians. There is nothing more regressive than politicians without term limits.

The subatomic Sutrino alludes: It started under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s "New Deal" in the 1930s, which authorized the program to make payment to - The real conserve ghost in the deux ex machine: FDR. They still want to kill off anything done by FDR. Real modernists.

Jeffy-Boy and I use it because like a boy you present innuendo where
'subatomic Sutrino' presents facts. FDR administration chose the path they took We were not born in 1938 when FDR was first elected.

Subatomic Sutrino the historian who knows and sees all sez:We were not born in 1938 when FDR was first elected. The big man is only half right. Kinda like the half life of a Sutrino. We weren't born in 1932, either, but FDR was elected that year, corncob. He became pres in 1933.

I agree Tom. These cities act as if they can do as they please even though they are willfully in violation of federal laws. As I recall from my first law class, federal laws supercede state and local laws, and I don't recall a general "do as I please" statute which allows towns, cities, or even states to pick and chose which precedant law they follow. Perhaps we should see how they do without federal funding and/or maybe allow the US AG prosicute those officals who refuse to comply.

Interesting reply, Thomas. I heard about "anchor babies" and how illegals use them to extend their stay in the U.S., and sympathize with Americans fed up with the socio-economic consequences of the practice. I'd say the entire family should get deported and only the child allowed to return after the age of 18 or 21, but that's just my opinion.

It's a little different in South Africa. Here immigrants (legal or not) don't get much in the way of assistance, ie. no language lessons, free healthcare, welfare, etc. While those born here or born overseas of South African parents are automatically entitled to citizenship, the biggest problems are usually the incompetent and crooked officials at Home Affairs.

These guys sell passports (look up the White Widow case, a British al Shabaab terrorist who ran on a SA passport) and I.D.s, residence permits and citizenship, and in many cases marry an illegal to an unsuspecting South African citizen who's not even present. It got to the point where Home Affairs set up a program on their website for people to check if they were married without their knowledge and launched a campaign to speed up the "divorce" process as well as make it virtually free, except for the damned nuisance of having to open a fraud case with the cops, cooperate with the investigation and follow up on the process to annul the marriage.

Of course, nearly undefended borders (crocodiles and hippos don't really count as border agents...) don't help either, and we have an unknown number of illegal immigrants who strolled into the country. To be fair, some are genuine refugees running for their lives, and they often go to the nearest police station or Home Affairs office to report themselves and start the asylum request process, but once again crooked and incompetent officials in the overburdened system give them a hellish run-around.

Mircea N., before about 1880 their was no public welfare by the federal government and maybe by the states, at least not many states. The federal government, congress did restrict some from coming I believe the Chinese were the major recipient, and I believe a famine in China resulted in wave migration fears since they have so many people. America like your country needs to assimilate the immigrants and that does not happen if to many come in as a group. The set up the social structure from their homeland and if is a large enough group form a country within a country. Some never assimilate, most do when immigration is measured and controlled, but the need to fully assimilate is lessen by living in the old culture. They actually do not understand what a Parliamentary or Constitutional government means at its core so they can be easily manipulated. The governing party can use freebyes to maintain power. And will alter the government laws or the practice of the laws over time to stay in power. That is the problem of a century of progressive control in the USA.

We both have to either expel or assimilate or we will not have a country that is recognizable or even a country. We both have to by legal processes cause a turnover of the government so that major minorities have as the capacity to prevent actions of the government that are harmful. That means only popular vote can not define the government. Regional voting is one means to do this. The election of Trump showed that by combining regional and popular voting more of a balance can be achieved.

Thomas, rather than trying to round up illegal immigrants, putting a big dent in the problem is not that difficult. If the IRS starts denying employee labor deductions unless they are on a valid W2 or 1099, and if the government tracks down illegal Social Security Numbers, the problem will start to go away by itself. Greatly reduce the number of jobs for illegals, and you reduce the number of illegals.

There are only two ways to pay an illegal alien, with cash, or on a fake SSN. Both are currently illegal but not enforced. You should not be able to pay an employee cash and deduct their pay that is unsupported by a W2, and this should be easy to check even with a computer. Likewise fake SSNs can be determined with a computer, comparing date of birth, deaths, duplication, etc. A fake SSN has to be a real number that is assigned to someone not the illegal worker, this should not be that difficult to track down. This wont catch the nannies, but it will catch the illegals employed by large farms, construction companies and restaurants. They cant afford to not deduct these wages.

Unfortunately, the sanctuary city problem is a way for local government to avoid the problem. Cities dont want to become an arm of ICE. They dont want their police to spend a lot of their time arresting illegal immigrants, and what do they do when they arrest them ? if the Feds dont pick them up, they have to let them go. Local government is not in position to enforce the immigration laws, and send people out of the country. If the Feds dont cooperate then what do they do with the people they arrest ?

Bill, Trump is going to concentrate on criminal illegal aliens which means that local police catch the person for the crime. They are not an arm of ICE. Basically the federal government is telling the sanctuaries to enforce federal law which require that if the local government knows the person picked up for a crime independent of immigration status may have violate a federal law, then the federal government has to be told that they have them. The federal government or the state government can then choose what they will do. That does not make the local government an arm of ICE and purposely rounding up aliens.

I get daily trivia questions. Recently one asked who was president the last time the national debt was paid off. It was Andrew Jackson. It will NEVER be paid off as long as there is welfare; and no term limits.

John Lock writes West, "[T]he law of nature teaches not only self-preservation bu also preservation of others, 'when one's own preservation comes in competition.' In other words, society is organized for the security of its members as well as their liberty and property. A society that fails to respond to those in need jeopardizes its own preservation."

The article goes on: "The founders saw a great danger in overly generous welfare policy - that it would promote irresponsible behavior. That , it turn, would threaten the inherent natural right of every individual "to liberty, including the right to the free exercise of one's industry and its fruits."

Thomas Jefferson argued that, "to take from one ... in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Benjamin Franklin wrote, "with sound poverty policy, "industry will increase ... circumstances [of the poor] will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves."

from David Weinberger, The Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/07/what-would-the-founders-do-about-welfare

We actually followed the founders' approach to welfare until the the present philosophers of the industrial Revolution that ended the enlightenment philosopher of which Locke was a member. Are we better off with Marx and that crew of philosophers? In my opinion they returned man to the philosophy of the dark ages. With the wealth of the industrial revolution they defined an alternate to tyranny typical of Islam, buying votes with welfare. The Roman republic used this very successfully for centuries.

And look where it got the Roman Empire. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it disintegrated quicker than it grew. I have been using Rome as a template for our disintegration, but Trump may manage to delay it a bit.

Thomas, I understand what you are saying, and that makes sense if ICE actually picked up the people the locals arrested. Currently they dont, at least in Houston they dont. So local law enforcement has been told not to bother. We also have the problem of illegals gathering in know locations looking for work, and no one picks them up, because again, ICE wont come get them.

Now if Trump changes this, then yes it will work better.

Im not sure we need "immigration reform" as much as we need enforcement of current laws. Both the laws of deportation that you point out, and the employment laws that I mentioned.

If laws had been enforced we never would have had bussing or affirmative action either. We govern by kicking the can as far down the road as possible until everyone forgets what the original problem was.

Well, Bill dry up the employers hiring and the other "immigration problems" will go away. But that's not as much fun as rounding 'em up, throwing them on buses and carting them off. They will need deportation squads, in ICE or extra of ICE to round up 11 million people.

So Steve creating jobs by private industry, capitalism, and realizing that the founders were smart. So requiring work as the laws actually say will start to bring down the debt.

The next step is special interest that make bills thousands of pages long. As a measure Canadian's ACA is 27 pages long. Obama ACA is thousands of pages a 5 to 6 inch binder.

The next step is to return to the Constitution where the Congress is responsible to create all laws. They can not give the responsibility to executive departments like EPA, IRS, etc. Make income tax due a month before an election.

Yes, return to the Constitution without random interpretation. If it doesn't fit the times then update it. And get the spoiled teenagers of the spoiled parents out there picking lettuce. Immigration is a byproduct of laziness, (feeling of) entitlement, and greed. How about all those "lawmakers" breaking the law with undocumented servants?

Steve B., we have an educated population that will need training for specific jobs. The vast majority of jobs will not be lettuce pickers. An example was on TV fox yesterday about Ozark and Dale County in Alabama. Building helicopters, producing structural steel, tires, etc. all high paying jobs made in modern automated plants. And how did this happen Incentives like what Carrier received and improving infrastructure so the businesses can move in knowing the infrastructure is in place. The junior college sets up programs to train workers before they are hired.

What we do not need is high taxes and expensive regulations that cause companies to pick other countries.

The Sutrino sez: What we do not need is high taxes and expensive regulations that cause companies to pick other countries. - So, Subatomic Sutrino, how does the government afford to buy these clowns off, like Carrier. $7M=less than 1000 jobs. Every little op is gonna be sticking their corporate hands out for the money, and you try and pass this off as "good business?"

To that end, Borsher's idea is more sound: teenagers of the spoiled parents out there picking lettuce.Immigration is a byproduct of laziness, (feeling of) entitlement, and greed. How about all those "lawmakers" breaking the law with undocumented servants? - and all those businesses that hire them and never get caught. All those angry white folks need a good field hand job, since immigrants "took all our jobs," without them they can take those jobs back. The family that picks lettuce together eats salad together.

And, no, we don't need higher taxes, we need fairer taxes, like a flat rate tax without deductions for things like inflated "charitable" donations. The current tax structure favors the same people that hire illegal aliens. It's the cheating by the so-called "leaders" that is the biggest problem. Hopefully,t his will be Trump's focus, among other things. Cheaters are losers, and Trump claims to hate losers.

And training people to build things won't help US if we have no manufacturing in the US. Hopefully, Trump will fix both sides of that too.

Jeffy Boy, at it again. Actually I this example, I heard it again was in Mississippi. So Trump said that he would spend a lot of money on infrastructure. The reason this rural area on Mississippi got the companies to put there plant in their area is 'infrastructure.' The structural metal producer needed lots of electricity. The others needed roads, trains, sewers, etc.. They actually built industrial parks where other manufactures could also build so the full cost of the infrastructure would in the end be spread over more companies.

Jeffy Boy this has been happening around the world for more then a century. Sometimes the plant owner builds the infrastructure by not that often. The colonies built community harbors, that is infrastructure. The question is the goal. Obama's infrastructure spending was to keep school teachers employed and the people that worked to get him elected rewarded. So the questions we have for Trump is, 'what are your goals?' If they are the same as Obama's then we do not want to pay for them.

Steve, correct. The current tax structure favors very large corporations over small ones, and rich people over the middle class. The complex code favors large companies who can pay low taxes because they can take advantage of the deductions, same with the rich. Small companies cannot take advantage of the deductions so they get screwed and pay a high tax rate.

We need to enforce the immigration laws we have, and stop allowing companies to hire illegals, it is not difficult. Stop allowing employee deductions when you pay them in cash, and catch people using fake Social Security Numbers, other countries do it, why cant we ?

Complex laws are nothing but a smoke screen for congressional fraud; the same thing is true for complex diplomatic arrangements. Hopefully, Trump will cut those Gordian Knots of obfuscation. He already started with the Taiwan call.

Subatomic Sutrino tries to make his point, but as always, fails: The others needed roads, trains, sewers, etc.. They actually built industrial parks where other manufactures could also build so the full cost of the infrastructure would in the end be spread over more companies. - Ah, Sutrino... Big business has loathed infrastructure spending for decades, a good example. Boeing. Facilities for distributing spare parts are and were built in an area heavily impacted by traffic to the point of Boeing not being able to deliver spares in timely fashion. Yet, when faced with having to chip in for better roads, Boeing screamed and whined, then saying it was unrelated, move their company HQ from Seattle to Chicago. Boeing gets huge state/county/city tax breaks, but does not want to contribute to improving infrastructure that would help the company anywhere. Take this example. multiply by at least (Fortune) 500, this is the major reason we have long-term infrastructure problems all over the nation, not, as you keep claiming, radical left wingers. But don't let reality interfere with your "Rush impression." You need punchier copy.

Hey, I know! When Federal funding is cut off to all of those sanctuary cities, the savings will be MORE than enough to fund all kinds of infrastructure improvement to the rest of the country! If they won't obey and enforce federal immigration laws, let them go without federal funding from taxpayers.

I never said politicians or corporate bureaucrats like government bureaucrats make great decision. They got to high positions because they are really politicians. That is one reason Trump won. He built up the company and yes daddy gave him money to start. That is different then a corporate bureaucrat that run companies like Boeing.

The laws during prohibition went after the sellers, makers, and importers, not after the drinkers because the justice system realized that they were unlikely to get juries that would convict, basically the application of common law.

Common law marriage is a realization that if sufficient time passed they are married in effect and juries will in a law suit come to the same conclusion that they would if they were married.

Kleenex has lost control of its name because it became by usage the name for a tissue to blow ones nose. Common law, a jury would not enforce its exclusive use of the name.

Can Trump deport all the illegal aliens? I expect that juries would prevent this for people that have been in the country and following the law and employed for a decade or more, common law, by not enforcing it after sufficient time you are presumed to have a right to be in this country. I can not predict the results of juries throughout the country concerning all the issues of illegal aliens. The body of juries will define a common law for when a person can and can not be deported. It will define which children born in this country with both parent illegal aliens are natural born citizens and which are not.

I do think it is abundantly clear that criminals will get deported. What is not clear is if the country will apply the concept of common law to tell us they will not accept someone that has not lived in their country for some period.

Sanctuary governments can force the issue of determining the common law. So a combination of legal and carrot and stick approach will be needed and I suspect more then one term of a president will be needed.

What is it that some of you don't understand about the term "ILLEGAL ALIENS"? If someone is in the US illegally (and especially if they are felons) and a mayor refuses to cooperate in the arrest and removal of him/her than the mayor is guilty of knowingly aiding and abetting a criminal and is subject to arrest himself.

Alien means: 1.(Law) a personowingallegiance to a countryotherthanthat in which he lives;foreigner2.Belongingto,characteristicof, or constitutinganotherandverydifferentplace,society, or person;strange.SeeSynonyms at foreign.

No, Mike, I mean that morality, although it cannot be legislated, does trickle down from above. My statement was from the mind of the lowly mayor, not from mine. Tar and feathering is what I think they all deserve, followed by several days of public humiliation in the stocks. We used to do that, and should do it again; not to mention exiling all lawyers, as the colonists did at one time.

Sutrino entones: The laws during prohibition went after the sellers, makers, and importers, not after the drinkers because the justice system realized that they were unlikely to get juries that would convict, basically the application of common law. - So how does this explain not going after those firms and individuals who hire illegal aliens? Seems your words belie the illegal employers...are those illegal employers "makers," and should not be held to the law, vs. the immigrants who are automatically and without question "takers?" Sounds excremental to me.

"Mr and Mrs. Legal, MIKE HALUSKA Whines:What is it that some of you don't understand about the term "ILLEGAL ALIENS"? If someone is in the US illegally (and especially if they are felons) and a mayor refuses to cooperate in the arrest and removal of him/her than the mayor is guilty of knowingly aiding and abetting a criminal and is subject to arrest himself. - So where is the stream of arrested employers, Mikey? I realize you're totally one sided, but since the Sutrino can't explain, maybe you can, right?

Jeffry Boy there you go again. I was talking about the principle of common law and you grab an example and ask "how does this expalain not going after ..." Because they are not related. That is why you are sill a BOY.

Jeffry Boy we go back to the senario put forth by Mark Levin on how the Attorney General could proceed. This is what is inferred Jeffry Boy, "If someone is in the US illegally (and especially if they are felons) and a mayor refuses to cooperate in the arrest and removal of him/her than the mayor is guilty of knowingly aiding and abetting a criminal and is subject to arrest himself. "

The subatomic Sutrino particle still plays at try to be a "Flush Limpjob," and doesn't offend much, but tries: Grow up Jeffry Boy. - You whine about immigrants but don't see it, or won't try and deal with both sides of your equation. They're here because someone told them they'd get a job, and do get work. Someone hires them. That is iilegal. You, Sutrino, just want to de-immigrant the US, you don't really care about laws unless they further your narrative, Subatomic particle that you are. Borsher chimes in: Does a sill a boy take a syll a bus to work? No. I ride on a thesaurus.

Sean Hannity 12/7/2016 had Judge Jean Pirro pointed out that Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence means they can not directly be forced to give federal criminals to the federal government. However that can not hid information from the federal government and congress can create a law or some laws on the books can be used to require them to hold them until the fed pick them up, (think it is like holding someone that has committed a crime in another state). Thus Mark Levin's comments.

Mike "Legal Eagle with a Big Engine" Haluska tries his "Rush" impression again with a nonanswer to: "So where is the stream of arrested employers, Mikey?"is an excellent question. My first guess would be in the Mayor's Office handing over envelopes of cash to "His Honor". Wow! What wit and humor!

Maybe they will under Trump; or not. They certainly have not been doing so for the past several decades in MA and RI. I have stories that would curl your copy of the US Constitution. They did mine. Average American citizens need not waste their time or money trying to assert their Constitutional rights, unless the ACLU thinks it will garner them some headlines.